It will be interesting to see which model wins.
It will be interesting to see which model wins.
I don't want actual politics at work. I don't want to be debating politically contentious events at work. E.g. (to pick a contentious topic that was in the news recently) a long winded debate on the palestine/israel conflict is not something i want to have at work. That doesn't mean i don't have opinions on the subject or that in a different context i wouldn't want to debate it, work is just not the time to get into it.
However that doesn't mean i think racism/bigotry/etc is acceptable at work.
I don't see these two things in conflict.
It really is as simple as that.
You may have never seen this in the workplace but it is increasingly common in some of the most coveted (or formerly so) employers like Google, Basecamp, Medium, etc.
Ideas are not the same thing to people - some ignore it, some don't, some abuse it, some change it for different purposes.
This is just "support my pet cause" with some added rationalization. The line of what constitutes as "being complicit" always conveniently ends where the majority of activists lie. You're bad if .1% of your company's revenue comes from a contract with a government organization, part of which enforces illegal immigration. However, if you sign this petition, your sins will be forgiven.
You presented your idea of the supporter of the quoted opinion and it turns out to be almost the opposite of the supporter you responded to.
Sure, if i went around saying that hitler was just misunderstood, i would probably get in trouble. And i'm totally ok with that.
Wear a Trump hat to work and see how long that lasts. Just tell people you voted for him, see if “you’ll be asked to condemn anything”.
“I’ve never had any problems with the people I work with“… probably just means you are aligned with them.
Oh, wait... that's right these activists don't care too much about THAT violence.
Silence is violence rings pretty hollow when your company deals in the loud explody kind of violence.
Tech is extremely un-diverse, but it somehow seems to attract much more vocal and activist types compared to the above. For example, I have never read about such incidents in the Navy or the Marines... Is it simply my ignorance, or does the military have an established way of dealing with such things?
FWIW, I'm sick of the politicization and invasion by SJWs of the discourse in our little bubble in the Bay Area. I'd heartily appreciate the day when I can spend a whole day at work with absolutely no discussion of politics and religion at work. Even private home life is not impervious to this nonsense (even talk at the dinner table often comes down to this, much to my dismay). Do others share a similar sentiment? Just like there are 'no-cellphone' train compartments, perhaps we can have 'politics/religion-free' zones at home and the office!
Tech has these "intelligentsia" activists that want to show they have the right ideas and opinions. Go to a welding shop or mechanic or marines or whatever, and everyone can have different opinions about something and nothing bad happens. People might laugh it off and call someone an idiot, that's about it.
That depends on the "something". Everyone has views they consider unacceptable. Try telling a marine about how 9/11 was actually justified. I highly doubt he would just laugh it off.
While there are exceptions, the military is one giant shared challenge. When people go through hell together and their lives depend on each other, they figure it out.
And of course Marines are the one that invented the term fragging.
The problem with activism in the west is lack of feedback for being obnoxious. So they can get away with it.
A very popular meme is how in june all corporations turn their profile pictures rainbow in all social media accounts except in the legit homophobic and conservative countries.
So it is activism entangled with safetysm. We protest where we know people will pay the dane geld.
I have a coworker who does almost no work, but is on four different organizational diversity committees so is basically bulletproof. They've caused major rifts in the team. My only solution is to find a new job, which is what I'm working on now.
When your workplace empowers those sorts of behaviours in the name of progressive benevolence, just ducking your head down only works for so long.
Why hire a black, hispanic, or LGBT person, if you have no ability to fire them without being labeled, canceled, or sued. Safer to just hire the white straight guy.
an unincorporated sole proprietorship is better for having no customers and hosting workshops on trending topics
I live in Eastern-European, one ocean away from the States, I'm curious about these workshops, do they really happen as often as people say they happen? (let's say once a month or so, which I would consider "often" for this type of meetings).
I'm asking because they do look to me like pretty much resembling the communist party indoctrinations work-place meetings my dad had to attend in the 1980s (my dad's workplace was in the business of building stuff inside a steel mill factory, so nothing intrinsically political about it), those communist party meetings seemed to be taken seriously by absolutely no-one and were seen just as a huge loss of one's time.
The book 'White Fragility' was used as a reference. You just sit through it and at the end say you found it enlighening or whatever. Box ticked.
Sorry, job quit.
I would NEVER allow myself to be forced into a room to listen to some racist “anti racist” nonsense and then consent to agreement on any of it even implicitly.
I’d consider that only a small step above willingly kneeling before my executioner.
I've not grown up in eastern Europe, but yeah probably right. Everyone thinks it's bullshit waste of time, but will anyone speak up? No, you sit through because it's easier than dealing with the consequences of denouncing the indoctrination.
if the yardstick is Marx and his manifesto + Das Kapital series, then practically nobody was a Marxist - not even Marx himself later in life and certainly not Lenin, Stalin or Mao
since Gramsci the mainstream of Marxism replaces material determinism with a hybrid of cultural hegemony and social gatekeeping, with things like religion, race, feminism being much more central than they were for Marx - and this has been the mainstream of Marxism for 100+ years, so hardly a new development in this particular respect
Homie, that’s just an indication of how far left you are.
HN doesn’t “skew pretty right” on anything. That’s just perspective for you.
Citation needed.
A big issue is different people have different definitions of these terms.
For example, say a very religous conservative doesn't want to use a trans persons preferred pronouns as they consider said pronouns to be untrue and sinful. They are otherwise polite and nondiscriminatory (e.g. they will listen to and implement ideas from the trans person and don't bring up their opinions of trans issues). Is this bigotry?
Or say some people in the company want to run a BLM donation drive and a conversation then ensues where someone states that they don't think racism has anything to do with USA police killings of blacks and it's actualy down to problems in the main african american culture. Is this racism?
Prioritizing made-up, vague and abstract ideas of "sins" and refusing to respect the identity of a fellow human? Yes, that is bigotry.
> Is this racism?
Yes, because there's plenty of research that's been done that says racism within police departments is responsible for the killing of black people in the USA. Not to mention countless videos of innocent black people being shot down by cops.
Believing something stupid doesn't excuse your bigotry or racism.
For every 10,000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed"
https://twitter.com/LeonydusJohnson/status/12674663458447400...
Consider also that there are towns such as Jackson, Mississippi which have police departments that are >90% black [1] but still have all the same problems as police forces in America generally:
https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/policeshootings/
Not posting this to change your mind, I don't think that's possible through a single comment, but if you seriously think that there can be no other good-faith, legitimate opinion than your own, then consider that you might not be thinking about this rationally.
"“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." John Stuart Mill
[1] https://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-dep...
"racism within police departments is responsible for the killing of black people in the USA"
Firstly, if they are mistaken about facts, that doesn't necessarily make them racist. That just makes them mistaken, and possibly racist depending on the reasons they are mistaken.Secondly, what is the evidence for this? I've read evidence of racism in US police departments against Blacks, but not specifically in the context of police killings.
Woah, so disagreeing with particular research is racist now? I've heard it all.
It is apparent to me that you are the stupid in this thread.
> I don't want actual politics at work. I don't want to be debating politically contentious events at work.
Frank and Kate is sitting at the lunch table. They are discussing "Israel's ongoing massacre in Gaza" and how awful it is. Your opinion is contrary to theirs. Do you feel that you have the right to make them not talk about this topic because you don't want "actual politics" at work? I'm curious to know where you think the line should be drawn. Suppose you are an atheist and you just got a warning from your manager because a Christian employee overheard you saying to a colleague that "all religions are such bunk." Should you not have been allowed to express that "controversial" opinion?
This means: water cooler discussion about Middle East conflict? Perfectly fine. "Bomb Israel Activism Day (with free cake in staff room)" organised by the company? Not okay.
I am sick of receiving corporate emails inviting me to "x pride/awareness/celebration" activities that have nothing to do with work, and that are not neutral topics. I am happy for people to have different opinions with me, and talk about them, and even debate with me about them, but I don't want "mandatory fun" events where the "fun" is eating a cake with icing colored in whatever way symbolizes the current woke topic, and being forced to stand around and pretend I care.
Wouldn't that mean that certain tech companies' bans on politics is a form of involvement in political activities and discussions?
> I am sick of receiving corporate emails inviting me to "x pride/awareness/celebration" activities that have nothing to do with work, and that are not neutral topics.
Interesting, can you give some examples of any such activities that you have been invited to?
Note that the agent compelling you to attend these events is the company you work for - not the "woke crowd". Since if pays you for your time it most certainly has the right to order you to attend to these mildly political events (gay pride, that you have as an example, isn't very controversial).
The company pays me to perform the duties in my contract and job description. It includes nothing about attending any events unrelated to those duties.
to take the example from the article:
"In July 2019, for example, Medium chose to publish a series that included a profile of Trump supporter Joy Villa with the headline “I have never been as prosecuted for being Black or Latina as I have been for supporting Trump.”"
When you're in the business of news publishing, on an incendiary and relevant political event at that, and your decisions have a real chance to influence public discourse, even engineering decisions, how is it realistic to think you're not involved in politics, or even can get away from it?
Tech, in particular media and communication platforms directly sit at the intersection of politics, news and technology. Those copmanies build the platforms where moderation and editorial decisions are made that have huge impact.
Sounds some kind of perverted game. The big ones are allowed to do whatever they want, the small ones should obey the rules of the big ones.
So should perverted games be allowed to the workplace? Another interesting question.
Some common sense applies. Selling services to a mainstream politician isn't really political in any major sense.
Selling services to terrorists/neo-nazis/etc is something different.
Yes, you can make grey examples that are unclear, but in practise i dont think its usually that ambigius of an issue most of the time.
But this is the attitude of business to be the next king or emperor without any legal binding. Chaos and anarchy, oppression and boasting. The evolution clock goes back 10^{5} years.
Do you discriminate between bananas and durian?
Do you discriminate between the man who beat you up and your spouse/partner?
Either they hop on the wagon fully or do something against it, but looking the other way means that real power within the community of employees will snowball to the most effective organizers of new call-out campaigns. Who may or may not have the best intentions, but their incentives do not really align with that of the corporation.
This is really a case of "everything can be overdone". Most people want to have the ability to protest against big outrages such as a KKK-themed party in the workplace. But calling out everything that someone on Slack finds offensive is an overkill that polarizes the community and diverts attention from the actual job tasks that need to be done.
Constant culture wars are, among others, a giant waste of energy and time. Most private sector institutions cannot afford to join them full time.
To be replaced with "merit doesn't matter, only group identity"?
> “diversity is our strength.”
That's rich coming from an ideology that actively depersonalises and reduces people to a group identity. Merit, intelligence, accomplishments, effort, passion - these things don't matter. Personal choice when it contradicts the narrative - seen as misguided, not respected!
What diversity is that, when they ignore exactly what makes one different from another in the same group? How is it fair when it proposes group guilt and punishment, to ignore all personal circumstances except race, gender and a few more attributes? It's diversity meant for group identities, not for people.
The ugly thing is that identity politics emphasises differences while being silent about cooperation. We all benefit from the work and advancement of the other groups, we cooperate more than we fight each other. There's more value in being together, but that's uncool to praise for them.
For reference take a look at how guilting and punishing for ideological motives and based on group identities went in the French Revolution. They started with an absolute monarchy and ended with an absolute dictator, in the meantime any wrong think could send you to the guillotine.
I don't entirely disagree that politics is not needed in the workplace, but people spend almost all their time at work now and so it has become their defacto social space. If you spend 8 hours a day there it is important to make sure it's comfortable.
That increase in diversity is a direct result of talking about the issue of intolerance in the workplace, making it more comfortable for different people to work there.
You can be a hard working closer and tolerant of others all the same.
A new drama every week, dealing with bad press from a resigned "activist" employee every other month. Even with sympathy towards those people, I probably wouldn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole when money and livelihood of all my employees are at stake. I'd probably just try to help their cause by other means but would not try to torture them in an environment where they'll inevitably suffer and be unproductive. Their utopia does not exist in planet earth (yet), is it reasonable to expect that to exist in a company working environment?
From a certain perspective, more is wrong with the world than right, and it is impossible to provide an environment that is "right" when most of the world is wrong. When you are the employer, you take the implicit role of building miniature model of that world in their working environment and I reckon that is impossible, at the very least very very expensive.
This is why any smart employer should start aggressively filtering such candidates out of their hiring pipeline.
My stance is, we pay you to be an engineer, so I hire people devoted solely to engineering.
All cultures are not compatible. Not everyone will not be comfortable in a particular culture. Not everyone will not be wanted in a particular culture. [0]
The left call this immoral, believing that any exclusion or disparity is the result of circumstances that enslave humanity, from which humanity should be liberated [1]. The result of this thinking is the limiting and constricting of various liberties, and a push towards the formation of a soulless, foundationless, conglomerated monoculture.
Instead of fighting to produce this horrible monoculture, we should accept that people don't get along, and then find a way to allow all cultures to thrive.
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203...
This argument also ignores inherent imbalances in society, like the fact that professions are largely chosen by interest. The same male-female inequality that exists in tech also exists in nursing, construction, hairdressing, etc.[1] I hope that we can one day accept that this is OK and not the result of some huge conspiracy and systemic discrimination (not that this doesn't exist, but that it's not the main cause for the imbalance).
I see this claim made a lot every time the "politics in the workplace" conversation happens, but really? "Almost all their time"? Isn't a normal person supposed to work 8 hours a day, sleep 8/10hours at night and spent 8/6 hours doing something else? If my math is correct that's not "almost all their time".
If some people are incapable of having a life outside of work, well balanced people shouldn't have to pay the price of their obsessions.
> Williams wrote that while counterperspectives and unpopular opinions are “always encouraged” to help make decisions, “repeated interactions that are nonconstructive, cast doubt, assume bad intent, make unsubstantiated accusations, or otherwise do not contribute to a positive environment have a massive negative impact on the team and working environment.”
>He added: “These behaviors are not tolerated.”
That doesn't sound like an unbiased removal of politics from the workplace to me. I think I would be out of the door, too.
You're conflating two different things.
You're the conflating one.
Why, do you "assume bad intent" and "make unsubstantiated accusations"? Do you want to, or do you want to work with people that do? I don't think anyone who quits because those "behaviours are not tolerated" will be missed by their former colleagues.
Yes: https://offices.depaul.edu/diversity/education/presidents-bo...
> Attributes of a successful antiracist > 1. Stop saying, “I am not racist.” > 2. Admit racism exists and is ascribed to you.
However, I think lots of people wondered why in the quote you included a few things that don't seem to be anything aside from objectively bad, such as "assuming bad intent" and "making unsubstantiated accusations."
How did someone simply asking you about it "crush" you into silence?
The Soviet space program was somewhat kneecapped by having its management shift with the political winds as people fell into or out of favor and having good people stuck in marginalized roles because of their political history.
I'd bet good money on the winner being the the model that doesn't care what people believe on topics not related to work.
(There's a bit of inherent Great Man Fallacy in figuring out the contributions of the Nazis, because while on the one hand von Braun did lead the design for the rocket that got NASA on the moon and the Soviets failed miserably at their equivalent, on the other hand, the Soviet rocketry lead who was behind their two previous successes died in 1966. There's an argument that they would have pulled it off if he had survived, but more generally, there's an argument that people other than von Braun were perfectly capable of competently building rockets, and in particular that they could do better work than the Americans while under Soviet-style politics.)